Behind Bakhtin: Russian Formalism and Kristeva's Intertextuality
| Autor: | Andrea Lesic-Thomas |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2005 |
| Předmět: | |
| Zdroj: | Paragraph. 28:1-20 |
| ISSN: | 1750-0176 0264-8334 |
| DOI: | 10.3366/para.2005.28.3.1 |
| Popis: | Intertextuality is one of those extremely useful and yet strangely vague theoretical concepts: the liberal definition would be that it refers to any form of interrelation between any number of texts, from the instances of clear reactions of one text to another (as in parody, for example) to the more general idea that there is not a single text that does not possess traces of other texts within itself. As Graham Allen points out, the term in its variety of meanings and use has become 'akin to such terms as "the Imagination", "history", or "Postmodernism" it is far from being 'transparent' and 'cannot be evoked in an uncomplicated manner'.1 If the diversity of the current use of the term can be seen as somewhat troubling, its origins appear to be beyond dispute: in 1966, Julia Kristeva, a young Bulgarian scholar, gave a presentation on Mikhail Bakhtin's theory of the novel and the nature of the word/ utterance/ discourse in the novelistic genres in Roland Barthes's seminar.2 This presentation was later published as a paper in Critique, and then included in Kristeva's book Semiotike : Recherches pour une semanalyse under the title 'Le mot, le dialogue et le roman' ('Word, Dialogue and Novel'). The new term was introduced to replace Bakhtin's own notion of dialogism where it refers to the text as a 'mosaic of quotations, an absorption and transformation of another text'.3 Taken on since as one of the key terms of literary scholarship,4 intertextuality has become a term widely used to denote any form of interrelation between any number of texts, and the conceptual change which accompanied this terminological change from 'dialogism' to 'intertextuality' is probably one of the great intellectual repackaging and marketing schemes in recent history.5 It served the double purpose of helping Kristeva establish herself as a voice to be reckoned with in French structuralist circles, as well as introducing those same circles to the world of Bakhtinian thought. In her recent book Intertextuality: Debates and Contexts, Mary Orr tells a similar version of this familiar story, but at the same time proposes |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|